Ah, I understand you now, you're right.

I remember there was a lot of confusion when llvm started removing stores to read-only memory[1], some people got angry because it broke some kernel code (that only worked because being in a kernel the memory page wasn't actually marked as read-only) and thought it would break any code that cast away a `const`, which is very common and valid as long as it was gratuitously `const`, as you say.

[1] https://releases.llvm.org/9.0.0/docs/ReleaseNotes.html#notew...